Automatic 3 penalty points for breaking red light at Luas Blackhall Place

RainyDay

Interesting new development

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Press_Release_Red_Light_Camera_System.pdf

Might put manners on those drivers who reckon their journey is more important than the many people on the Luas.

Red Alert

I think it's a great idea and long overdue. Now all they need to do is capture the cyclists too!

Carawaystick

I wonder will the camera's catch tram drivers not yielding to pedestrians already crossing at a junction
SI182/1997

Section 8
Yielding Right of Way
8.
(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

Red Alert

Unless they're very slow crossers, that means they've walked on the amber light, which they shouldn't do.

loyatemu

Red Alert wrote: »

I think it's a great idea and long overdue. Now all they need to do is capture the cyclists too!

Does the Luas get delayed much by cyclists blocking the line?

Tenzor07

ANPR cameras, at last we have one in the country!

I am sure that there's a lot of Luas junctions where these cameras could be installed...

Will make Taxi's, vans, private cars and bus's think twice before they put the foot down and try cut through before the Luas get's there..

Tenzor07

loyatemu wrote: »

Does the Luas get delayed much by cyclists blocking the line?

Well apparently, just like in the movie "Minority report", there are cameras which can identify errand cyclists from there behinds!
Then issue Playpoints onto there non-existant Bicyclist licence!

MrMorooka

Red Alert wrote: »

Unless they're very slow crossers, that means they've walked on the amber light, which they shouldn't do.

Most pedestrian lights seem to have amber phases that are twice as long as the green phase. If you don't cross on amber you will be waiting for longer than it would have taken to cross in the first place.

RainyDay

Tenzor07 wrote: »

ANPR cameras, at last we have one in the country!

I am sure that there's a lot of Luas junctions where these cameras could be installed...

Will make Taxi's, vans, private cars and bus's think twice before they put the foot down and try cut through before the Luas get's there..

Why limit it to Luas junctions? A camera at Phibsboro would pay for itself in a week, with the €120 fines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx7AmpDMFoU

Tenzor07

I read that in the UK there has to be a criteria for these cameras to be set-up at a junction. So probably based on numbers of collisions and/or injuries/fatalities.

A lot of Luas junctions already qualify based on collisions alone I'd say...

Atlantic Dawn

Similar technology should be placed on the M50 and roads in and out of major cities to check for motor tax and issue fines.

ceannair06

The very reason idiot cyclists get away with so much crap is that they can't be identified.

Change that NOW.

Patser

Will it monitor the bus lane there too and catch those that use it to jump traffic and take up space on the poorly light sequenced James Joyce bridge or to take illegal left turn onto quays?

ANPR should be able to identify buses and registered taxis yes?

bk

ceannair06 wrote: »

The very reason idiot cyclists get away with so much crap is that they can't be identified.

Change that NOW.

No, just no.

We want to be promote cycling and getting as many people as possible cycling, not making it more expensive and difficult.

Just an incredibly stupid idea.

Sheldons Brain

MrMorooka wrote: »

Most pedestrian lights seem to have amber phases that are twice as long as the green phase. If you don't cross on amber you will be waiting for longer than it would have taken to cross in the first place.

That is precisely to allow people complete their crossing.

Will it monitor the bus lane there too and catch those that use it to jump traffic and take up space on the poorly light sequenced James Joyce bridge or to take illegal left turn onto quays?

There is a strong case for more of these cameras for these purposes.

We want to be promote cycling and getting as many people as possible cycling, not making it more expensive and difficult.

We want to promote legal cycling presumably, not facilitate lawless louts?

Crunchienut

Red Alert wrote: »

Unless they're very slow crossers, that means they've walked on the amber light, which they shouldn't do.

At the Abbey Street/O'Connell Street junction the pedestrian light cycle is to go green for pedestrians (all directions) once the Luas has passed. If the Luas gets stuck in the junction for any reason (e.g. vehicle blocking track) the lights still change in favour of the pedestrians. On several occasions I have seen the Luas proceed through the junction regardless.

ceannair06

No, we want cyclists who:

DON'T ride on pavements
STOP at red lights
OBEY traffic signals
AVOID pedestrianised areas
LEARN TO RIDE

Instead we have idiots.

Macy0161

These should be at all junctions. Or at least the potential for them to be at all junctions - have the boxes at every lights and move the cameras around. The amount of vehicles breaking lights in Dublin is ridiculous in my experience. When I lived in the UK, there was more boxes for RLJ and Speeding than there were camera's - not too many gambled on the box being empty.

They should capture cyclists too - junctions with high non-compliance can be targeted with on the spot enforcement and/or pulling in cyclists who may have been captured on camera - they could be pulled over for a lecture even if the evidence wasn't enough to secure a prosecution. Particularly in rush hour and on commuter routes where there's a fair chance of the same people coming through every day. There's more ways to enforce than an unworkable licence plate/ registration option.

monument

Red Alert wrote: »

I think it's a great idea and long overdue. Now all they need to do is capture the cyclists too!

ceannair06 wrote: »

The very reason idiot cyclists get away with so much crap is that they can't be identified.

Change that NOW.

There's few bicycle-tram collisions compared to car/truck-team collision.

Bicycles also tend not to block yellow junction boxes.

People cycling breaking red lights is a problem but it's not causing as much of a problem for Luas.

AngryLips

Fixed it for you:

ceannair06 wrote: »

No, we want cars who:

DON'T ride on pavements
STOP at red lights
OBEY traffic signals
AVOID pedestrianised areas
LEARN TO DRIDE

Instead we have idiots.

:pac:

MrMorooka

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That is precisely to allow people complete their crossing.

So if you don't happen to arrive at the crossing in the 5 seconds it is green, you should wait the 15 seconds it is amber, then the 2 minutes until the next cycle? It is an imperfect system, people who wait the amber phase will feel like lemons an after a few times they will just start crossing on amber, I know that's what I do. You also get drivers who start inching forward into crossings when the lights go amber, expecting they will get a green soon, so that introduces low level aggro and potential for danger.

I get the point of the long amber phases is to allow mobility-impaired people to complete the crossing, it's just very frustrating.

RainyDay

ceannair06 wrote: »

The very reason idiot cyclists get away with so much crap is that they can't be identified.

Change that NOW.

ceannair06 wrote: »

No, we want cyclists who:

DON'T ride on pavements
STOP at red lights
OBEY traffic signals
AVOID pedestrianised areas
LEARN TO RIDE

Instead we have idiots.

Bloody cyclists - did you know that they kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? Oh wait, no - I got that wrong. It's motorists that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others. Cyclists don't kill anyone - but please do feel free to focus enforcement activity on cyclists if you want the real killers to get away.

Carawaystick

Red Alert wrote: »

Unless they're very slow crossers, that means they've walked on the amber light, which they shouldn't do.

What lights?
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347365,-6.282331,3a,75y,285.91h,65.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8l7xVIm11HZm-tD0ELO5aA!2e0?hl=en

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347365,-6.282331,3a,75y,105.36h,69.67t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8l7xVIm11HZm-tD0ELO5aA!2e0?hl=en

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Does every thread in here have to descend into motorists vs cyclists?

MrMorooka

Carawaystick wrote: »

What lights?
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347365,-6.282331,3a,75y,285.91h,65.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8l7xVIm11HZm-tD0ELO5aA!2e0?hl=en

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.347365,-6.282331,3a,75y,105.36h,69.67t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8l7xVIm11HZm-tD0ELO5aA!2e0?hl=en

It is an interesting point, are trams supposed to yield to peds in a situation like this?

Carawaystick

Yes.
SI182/1997 Section 8(3)
Trams are vehicles. They're not "mechanically propelled vehicles" but this law doesn't mention "mechanically propelled vehicles".

ardmacha

Carawaystick wrote: »

Yes.
SI182/1997 Section 8(3)
Trams are vehicles. They're not "mechanically propelled vehicles" but this law doesn't mention "mechanically propelled vehicles".

How are they propelled other than a motor mechanically linked to wheel? Jet propulsion?

Carawaystick

ardmacha wrote: »

How are they propelled other than a motor mechanically linked to wheel? Jet propulsion?

"Mechanically propelled vehicle" has a specific legal meaning.
Legally pushbikes aren't mechanically propelled vehicles for example.

It's similar to the legal definition of an animal in the road traffic acts, only a tiny subset of animal species are "animals"
Also an ass is a horse. :eek:

Crunchienut

Carawaystick wrote: »

Yes.
SI182/1997 Section 8(3)
Trams are vehicles. They're not "mechanically propelled vehicles" but this law doesn't mention "mechanically propelled vehicles".

On that basis would you argue that neither is a Nissan Leaf?

Carawaystick

from the rta'61

Road Traffic Act, 1961 wrote:

“mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

Leaf/teslacar/renaults yoke all "mechanically propelled"

Aard

The accompanying document from Luas identifies four candidates in total -- Blackhall Place, Queen St, Capel St and Jervis St.

It's likely that these will be the next locations for such cameras.

I would also suggest St John's Road West at Heuston station. The yellow box there is often blocked by people leaving the backside of their car in the way of the tram. I've seen a tram wait for two light cycles as the same thing happened again and again.

bigar

ceannair06 wrote: »

No, we want cyclists who:

DON'T ride on pavements
STOP at red lights
OBEY traffic signals
AVOID pedestrianised areas
LEARN TO RIDE

And we also want drivers of motorised vehicles to

DON'T park on pavements and cycle tracks or anywhere they should not
STOP at red lights
OBEY traffic signals
AVOID pedestrianised areas
DON'T use bus lanes when not permitted to do so
DON'T do illegal U-turns
DON'T block junctions
GIVE WAY to pedestrians when turning into a street
LEARN THE TRAFFIC LAWS

monument

Let's stay on-topic from now on.

-- moderator

Chris_5339762

bigar wrote: »

And we also want drivers of motorised vehicles to

GIVE WAY to pedestrians when turning into a street

I agree with all of them except this ones. Drivers have right of way when turning INTO a side street, pedestrians have right of way when a driver is turning OUT of a side street.

animaal

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I agree with all of them except this ones. Drivers have right of way when turning INTO a side street, pedestrians have right of way when a driver is turning OUT of a side street.

Is this the case? I wasn't aware of it. The only things I can find that mention this area at all are from the rules of the road:

As a driver, you must not put a pedestrian at risk. In particular, you must
give way to pedestrians:
- on or at a zebra crossing (even if they are only waiting to cross),
- on or at a pelican crossing, when the amber light is flashing,
- crossing the road, if you are moving off from a stationary position (for example at a traffic light or a parking space), and
- at a junction, if they have started crossing the road.

The last point is an instruction to **drivers** that they shouldn't plough ahead into crossing pedestrians, rather than an invitation for pedestrians to assume a right of way.

Under the sections aimed at pedestrians, there are descriptions of rights-of-way at pedestrian lights and pelican crossings. While it says that drivers must yield at those points, it doesn't mention ordinary junctions. In fact, it says:

If you are crossing at traffic lights, but there are no signals for pedestrians, check the lights in both directions. When the traffic on the road you wish to cross is governed by a red light, cross carefully

There'd be no need for that statement if the pedestrian could treat a junction like a pelican crossing.

monument

I'm jumping straight to infractions for the next off-topic post -- moderator.

savagethegoat

what is it with people being so concerned with what cyclists get up to? They rarely cause a problem when jumping lights etc and it's usually only their own safety compromised

AlekSmart

savagethegoat wrote: »

What is it with people being so concerned with what cyclists get up to? They rarely cause a problem when jumping lights etc and it's usually only their own safety compromised

Ain't that kinda sorta the half truth........

Well worth reading and watching the Full Story here.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097257/Cyclist-crashes-bus-zooming-red-traffic-light-brakes-fail.html

Builder Charlie Baker, who was cycling to a work meeting at the time of the incident, said: 'I tried to make the lights before they changed but when I realised I was going to run a red light I pulled the front brake and the cable in the handle snapped.

'It was me. Thought I’d just get the lights hence the speed., Realised it wasn’t happening, squeezed the front brake. Cable snapped. Not enough time to lose speed on back wheel in the wet. Not fun.'

"Thought I'd make the lights" ....savagethegoat's spot on here...If this cyclist had been driving a vehicle and performed the same stunt,the outcome would have been somewhat different ?

RainyDay

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ain't that kinda sorta the half truth........

Well worth reading and watching the Full Story here.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097257/Cyclist-crashes-bus-zooming-red-traffic-light-brakes-fail.html





"Thought I'd make the lights" ....savagethegoat's spot on here...If this cyclist had been driving a vehicle and performed the same stunt,the outcome would have been somewhat different ?

Who's safety did Charlie compromise with this dumb manoevre, other than his own?

trellheim

These cameras should be at jn of NCR and Hanlons corner/Prussia St/Old Cabra Rd, the NCR red light jumpers make it near lethal.

RandomAccess

trellheim wrote: »

These cameras should be at jn of NCR and Hanlons corner/Prussia St/Old Cabra Rd, the NCR red light jumpers make it near lethal.

That junction doesn't seem all that bad. I would say theres some amber gamblers but not much in the way of red light jumping (I detest amber gamblers but they are not in the same league as the red light runners). Again thats just in my experience. I cross it twice a day.

In Phibsboro NCR junction, where that earlier clip was posted the Gardai are routinely pulling motorists and cyclists for jumping the lights.

Phibsboro in general is a bit of a black spot, heres the worst I've seen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEv_yyQdHRY

Aard

How expensive are these Red Light Cameras to install, run, and maintain? Would they pay for themselves after a while? Would it be economical to put them at every major junction in the city?

RandomAccess

Aard wrote: »

How expensive are these Red Light Cameras to install, run, and maintain? Would they pay for themselves after a while? Would it be economical to put them at every major junction in the city?

I don't think anyone would like to embark on a UK style cctv nation.
If we were to have an installation of the scale you described then it's certain that a private consortium would be involved similar to GoSafe Or SiteServ for Irish water and they are in it for profit which sends entirely the wrong message I think. Personally I think we need to be wary of privatising anything which involves penalty charges.

There was a case in the U.S. I believe where the red light camera timing was set to an illegally short orange light interval to increase revenue.
Will try find the report.. Found it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-timing-20141009-story.html#page=1

And
http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

schemingbohemia

RandomAccess wrote: »

I don't think anyone would like to embark on a UK style cctv nation.
If we were to have an installation of the scale you described then it's certain that a private consortium would be involved similar to GoSafe Or SiteServ for Irish water and they are in it for profit which sends entirely the wrong message I think. Personally I think we need to be wary of privatising anything which involves penalty charges.

There was a case in the U.S. I believe where the red light camera timing was set to an illegally short orange light interval to increase revenue.
Will try find the report.. Found it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-timing-20141009-story.html#page=1

And
http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

And paranoia enters the equation, how drearily predictable.

RandomAccess

schemingbohemia wrote: »

And paranoia enters the equation, how drearily predictable.

Excuse me?

roadrunner16

ceannair06 wrote: »

The very reason idiot cyclists get away with so much crap is that they can't be identified.

Change that NOW.

No its not its because they represent a small proportion of the road deaths and injuries, car drivers are far more likely to be injured or killed on the road than cyclists. Bikes and small and slow and light compared to cars, would you rather be hit by a car at 30 kph or a cyclist at 30 kph ?

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Analysis%20of%20fatal%20and%20serious%20injury%20collisions%20occurring%20over%20the%20summer%20months%20of%20June_%20July_%20and%20August%202010%20to%202014.pdf

Cyclists are less likely to kill of be killed on the roads. Pedestrians are the most vunreable road user and are mostly killed by car drivers, Should we regulate pedestrians ?

Vehicle involved: In the majority of cases, a car was involved in the
pedestrian fatality (27 fatalities). Vans were involved in 6 fatal collisions,
articulated trucks in 3 collisions, 2 jeeps, 2 taxis, 1 rigid truck and there was
one collision involving a LUAS and a car.

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional%20review%20of%20Road%20Crashes%202014.pdf

schemingbohemia

RandomAccess wrote: »

Excuse me?

RandomAccess wrote: »

I don't think anyone would like to embark on a UK style cctv nation.
If we were to have an installation of the scale you described then it's certain that a private consortium would be involved similar to GoSafe Or SiteServ for Irish water and they are in it for profit which sends entirely the wrong message I think. Personally I think we need to be wary of privatising anything which involves penalty charges.

There was a case in the U.S. I believe where the red light camera timing was set to an illegally short orange light interval to increase revenue.
Will try find the report.. Found it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-timing-20141009-story.html#page=1

And
http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

One case of a dodgy operator and using scare tactic CCTV Nation language to me spells paranoia, obviously you don't believe so. Mine was an opinion as was yours.

Captain Chaos

roadrunner16 wrote: »

. Bikes and small and slow and light compared to cars, would you rather be hit by a car at 30 kph or a cyclist at 30 kph ?

Cyclists are less likely to kill of be killed on the roads. Pedestrians are the most vunreable road user and are mostly killed by car drivers, Should we regulate pedestrians ?

I have been clipped by a van once that broke a red light while I was crossing the road in my 30 years on this planets but I have been hit 3 times from behind while walking on the path by Dublin Bike users around Stephens Green. There is nothing light about them bike.

I was delighted one day when I was a Gard shout at a cyclist for going the wrong way down a one way street against the on coming traffic. He called him back and gave him a proper ear full. I wish there were more like him.

I think it's high time something was done about bike users and it being actively enforced. There are far to many idiots with no common sense out there imo compared to motorists percentage wise.

Macy0161

Aard wrote: »

How expensive are these Red Light Cameras to install, run, and maintain? Would they pay for themselves after a while? Would it be economical to put them at every major junction in the city?

You wouldn't need them at every major junction, just the potential for them to be there. You have poles and boxes at the junctions, and a smaller number of cameras that are randomly rotated around the sites.

Captain Chaos wrote:

I think it's high time something was done about bike users and it being actively enforced. There are far to many idiots with no common sense out there imo compared to motorists percentage wise.

I don't think there's many cyclists that argue against fixed penalty notices. The Government and/or State Authorities are dragging their heels on introducing them.

roadrunner16

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I have been clipped by a van once that broke a red light while I was crossing the road in my 30 years on this planets but I have been hit 3 times from behind while walking on the path by Dublin Bike users around Stephens Green. There is nothing light about them bike.

I was delighted one day when I was a Gard shout at a cyclist for going the wrong way down a one way street against the on coming traffic. He called him back and gave him a proper ear full. I wish there were more like him.

I think it's high time something was done about bike users and it being actively enforced. There are far to many idiots with no common sense out there imo compared to motorists percentage wise.

A fair point I suppose, but that's just your personal experience the RSA stats show car drivers are being killed the most and causing the most accidents resulting in deaths and serious injury, but its people who don't obey the rules of the road who are at fault , some are behind steering wheels, some are behind handle bars , but I'd rather have an idiot behind a handle bar than driving a car !

RainyDay

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I have been clipped by a van once that broke a red light while I was crossing the road in my 30 years on this planets but I have been hit 3 times from behind while walking on the path by Dublin Bike users around Stephens Green. There is nothing light about them bike.

I was delighted one day when I was a Gard shout at a cyclist for going the wrong way down a one way street against the on coming traffic. He called him back and gave him a proper ear full. I wish there were more like him.

I think it's high time something was done about bike users and it being actively enforced. There are far to many idiots with no common sense out there imo compared to motorists percentage wise.

Interesting how your personal experience differs signficantly from national road safety statistics, which show that cars and trucks kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, while bicycles kill zero people each year, and don't injure enough people for that to show up as a significant category. Now where should we choose to focus our enforcement and regulatory activity?